Discussion It's really sad how society treats incels

[casual_existence]

Most people WANT to treat other people nicely. Whatever the reason it can be expected that on average you will be treated well by society. Just spend more time away from electronics and more time doing anything else around people.
You don't even need to interact with them.
Just notice how people won't try to beat you up for no reason. They won't scream at you. If you buy something they won't stop you. If you try to talk to someone they won't immediately run away. If you start doing weird things they still might not run away but at that point you're taking advantage of someone's kindness.
If something does happen you're in the wrong environment.
In relationships it's very similar but now trust is involved. They need to know that you won't hurt them. That you won't take advantage of them. That you'll be reliable. That you can take care of yourself. That you can deal with negative situations. That you can deal with positive situations.
Even in one night stands this is applicable. Even in prostitution this is applicable.
So in a framework where women are seen as sex objects where does trust and kindness have space? Objects don't strictly need to be treated with kindness because no matter how poorly a set of shoes are treated they'll still be there for you. If you forget them somewhere then who cares. Just buy another pair. Shoes can be worn whenever and in any way. Shoes do not need to be tricked into being worn. They might have a technique to them but you don't need to follow. Tuck in the lace or get laceless shoes.
Carefully analyze your beliefs about the world or else stay in ignorance.

 

[sceáwere]

They aren't hated because they are scapegoats, they are hated due to their misogynistic attitudes towards women. Also, they are nowhere near close to the bottom of the hierarchy. Most incels are cis-het men, so despite their issues with living up to gender expectations they are granted a lot of privilege from being a part of those identities.


The term incel has become one frequently used to describe a specific subset of virgin men who happen to be misogynistic towards women, blaming them and society for their issues with getting laid and going into a relationship. They are generally hostile towards sexually active men and women (especially women). That is an essential characteristic of being an incel.

"Nice guys" also aren't usually very nice. They are men who view themselves as being nice and thus believe that entitles them to women's bodies. A lot of these men are quick to turn hostile when denied things, such as sex, hence their poor reputation.


Women aren't valued in society. This comment in of itself proves that, reducing us down to our wombs rather than viewing us as people. Women are treated as objects by wider society.

Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..

To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.

Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.

With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.

 

[pyx]

Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..

To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.

Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.

With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.

interesting. how do you think undesirables are regulated by communities so that they may be discouraged and selectively eliminated from sexual competition? do you think there's a threshold for overcoming what you call discouragement (by women) from seeking partners? you mentioned that both men and women are complicit in this, in that men will try to one-up eachother in order to have a higher chance in sexual competition, and women do so to regulate undesirable attributes; so assuming, for the sake of argument, that physical and social qualities are the only factors that matter, which are more desirable fitness indicators? or do you need both at a certain point? not trying to critique, as most self-identifying incels only seek to wax their polemical bile rather than articulate their positions, which are either met equally with further dogpiling of insults or vapid, conciliatory remarks

 

[sceáwere]

interesting. how do you think undesirables are regulated by communities so that they may be discouraged and selectively eliminated from sexual competition? do you think there's a threshold for overcoming what you call discouragement (by women) from seeking partners? you mentioned that both men and women are complicit in this, in that men will try to one-up eachother in order to have a higher chance in sexual competition, and women do so to regulate undesirable attributes; so assuming, for the sake of argument, that physical and social qualities are the only factors that matter, which are more desirable fitness indicators? or do you need both at a certain point? not trying to critique, as most self-identifying incels only seek to wax their polemical bile rather than articulate their positions, which are either met equally with further dogpiling of insults or vapid, conciliatory remarks

communities deal with mal-integrated people, dysgenic people and other undesirables through various means, from bullying to social ostracism to culling. overcoming this discouragement is considerably difficult, and the threshold depends on local, contemporary socio-cultural conditions and one's constitution. one may make up for his shortcomings with wealth or attaining a social status, but these can only buy certain forms of love, and there are certain deficiencies that cannot be surmounted..
and while i do believe that attractiveness and intrasocial capabilities are of a primal nature, there is another aspect of mate selection besides eros, that being logos and the practical considerations one must abide by (my definition of logos including here concepts such as arranged marriage)

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..

Ah yes, that explains why women had to fight for the right to vote (even by the early 20th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold office in most of the US and Europe), weren't able to open up their own bank accounts until around the 1970s, and are right now having their reproduction rights taken away in certain states. Women being denied the right to own property, study, or partake in public life in medieval Europe? Women being barred from receiving an education? Women not being allowed to conduct business without a male representative? Women now having to deal with dudes who literally demonize us for not wanting to date them and advocating for our downfall? Being constantly sexualized from a young, being seen as just objects for male pleasure rather than as human-beings? You continually reducing our value down to our reproductive parts? Yep, I would say that women definitely have it good. Not like we are the one's disproportionately more likely to be killed off by our partners, that's for sure!

You need to open up a history textbook if you genuinely believe the bullshit you spewing out right now. I'm not even joking, this is some next level bullshit right here. Women are considered to be an oppressed demographic, both historically and even today. A lot of the issues that men go through, while valid, are not as a result of a specific system looking to push them down. Rather, it's as a result of the same system that allows for them to hold power over women. For the patriarchy to work, there are certain things that need to be upheld and some of those things do end up causing harm to men in the name of providing them with power and status. A good example of this is seen when talking about abuse. A large part of why male abuse victims in straight relationships aren't taken seriously is because it goes against the image that this system paints in order to justify and uphold its existence. Men are expected to be strong and dominant while women are expected to be weak and submissive. This particular situation goes against that expectation, leading to the victim being made fun of for failing to meet those societal standards.

You are whining about standards that are in place because of other men, not because of women. Women historically would not have had the power to create this dilemma you are now complaining about.

To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.

Yeah, no. It's not based in biology. This is just bioessentialist nonsense. Being an incel largely stems from a mixture societal issues (the patriarchy) along with how those people decide to deal with them.
From my original post:

Most people aren't a huge fan of those who are openly misogynistic and who advocate for things, like violence and rape against women. It makes it so that they are hard to sympathize with. While I understand that there is a lot of pressure on men to lose their virginity as soon as possible, even at the cost of their well-being and safety, this reaction to being unable to fulfill those societal expectations is disgusting. Even here, we have already had two instances of members who happened to be incels using men who committed hate crimes against women as their profile pictures.

Incel has gone from a term to simply refer to those who are involuntarily celibate to a full-on hate group promoting violence against women. Rather than confronting the actual systems at play, the ones that put pressure on them to be dominant and to have as much sex as possible lest they fail to be a "true man", the one that forces them into this role because it needs to to keep the illusion of men being all-powerful and dominating because if it doesn't then others will realize that it is all a sham then they will start to rebel against those in power, they instead double down.

They blame women, viewing them as disobedient servants, unwilling to stand down and know their place in the world. We are not people to them, but instead, we are objects that only exist for their pleasure. I don't fully blame them for this, surprisingly enough. From a young age, boys are taught that women belong to them and that they are entitled to our bodies. As a result, when reality comes to bite them in their asses, showing that women will refuse to have sex with them if they don't want to, they get mad. I don't think that incels would exist if we didn't live in a patriarchal society. Still, none of this excuses their behaviour. Everybody suffers under the patriarchy, but most don't go out of their way to advocate or do any of the shit that these people are doing. Incel hate is completely justified.

Most people don't like incels because incels are misogynists. Incels have gone out of their way to even advocate for and actually harm women and girls.

I'd recommend reading this article before you continue on with your spiel about those 'poor wittle incels'.

Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.

Most men don't want to get their female friends. This just tells me that your interactions with the opposite sex are likely few and far in-between. Again, you are trying to use bioessentialist arguments while ignoring other social factors. Specifically pretending to be nice to someone with the idea being that this means that you'll be entitled to their body is gross and demeaning. You are trying to excuse their actions, but considering the fact that most men don't this shit and know better, I would say that "biology" isn't an excuse here.

And yes, they turn hostile. How are going to disagree with that when you can find plentu fo women online who have openly talked about this?

Your unironic use of the term "soyboy" also just making you look worse dude. I can't even take you seriously now.

With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.

Again, you are reducing women down to their reproductive parts whilst simultaneously trying to create the image that we are the ones with all the power, as though part of that power wouldn't come with the benefit of being view as a fellow human rather than being reduced down to our wombs and fertility, something that men don't typically have to go through. You would think that with this supposed power would also wouldn't have had more options in life, historicially speaking, instead of being seen as subjects of our husbands and not having the option to live independently. You would also think that, in todays world, it wiuld also mean us not having to work harder to be taken seriously, esepcially in the workplace. To add onto this, there have been societies in the past that did out a lot of emphasis on the role men played in reproduction, so it's weird to try and act as though this supposed praise went one way. You constantly scream about men being disposable your weird obsession with our wombs goes on to also highlight another thing, which is that women are also treated as being disposable. Women's value generally tends to be based on age, looks, and fertility, with women unable to meet those standards being treated poorly or even thrown to the side. This is one of the reasons why people warn women to be careful when going into "traditional relationships", as there are a lot of cases of husbands cheating on and even trading their wives for younger women.

You keep on going on about biological truths when these issues are more sociocultural rather than biological. A lot of how our society is structured today isn't based on biology and is very different from how a lot of societies were structured pre-agricultural era. Again, a lot of what you complain about is due to other men, not women. Along with that, women back then were (and still are to varying degrees throughout the world) treated like objects and had very few rights in comparison to men. The owning of things, like resources, wealth, and status, go back to the the idea of men needing to be dominant and powerful, and image created by and upheld by men.

Also, women don't exist in a vacuum. We also are not all a fucking hivemind (again, showcasing the clear biases you have against us). Women, in the past especially, would have had to care about the wealth of their partner because they would have been completely reliant on them. Back then, women were expected to be homemakers. This type of "traditional lifestyle" costs a lot of money to maintain and that money is being provided from one source. As a result, the wealth of your partner would have mattered. This, funnily enough, doesn't tend to matter nearly as much anymore, as now a lot of women are in the workforce. This is part of why male beauty standards have been going up as of late. Because men can't as easily rely on thing, like income and status, to score a partner they instead now have to try relying more things, such as looks. (*It is important to note that male beauty standards are still not as bad a female beauty standards, though they are getting higher)

A lot of women don't care about height and there are a lot of men who do care about things, such as height. A lot of what you've said can actually be argued in the reverse, as men will typically go after good-looking women as a means of showing off to others.



Anyway, I'm probably not going to bother with responding to you again. A lot of your arguments are literally just you repeatedly trying to push the narrative that you are oppressed for being a man while also being sexist towards women. All of your arguments are just the same bioessentialist bullcrap being stated over and over again. It's like you've never read a history textbook before...

 

[yariousvamp]

i mean just take a look at their forums man. its full of them calling women toilets and foids. wanting to enslave them and laughing at rape victims of wars. and more theres a bunch of virgin lonely men here that dont associate themselves with these kind of "incels"

 

[sceáwere]

Ah yes, that explains why women had to fight for the right to vote (even by the early 20th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold office in most of the US and Europe), weren't able to open up their own bank accounts until around the 1970s, and are right now having their reproduction rights taken away in certain states. Women being denied the right to own property, study, or partake in public life in medieval Europe? Women being barred from receiving an education? Women not being allowed to conduct business without a male representative? Women now having to deal with dudes who literally demonize us for not wanting to date them and advocating for our downfall? Being constantly sexualized from a young, being seen as just objects for male pleasure rather than as human-beings? You continually reducing our value down to our reproductive parts? Yep, I would say that women definitely have it good. Not like we are the one's disproportionately more likely to be killed off by our partners, that's for sure!

You need to open up a history textbook if you genuinely believe the bullshit you spewing out right now. I'm not even joking, this is some next level bullshit right here. Women are considered to be an oppressed demographic, both historically and even today. A lot of the issues that men go through, while valid, are not as a result of a specific system looking to push them down. Rather, it's as a result of the same system that allows for them to hold power over women. For the patriarchy to work, there are certain things that need to be upheld and some of those things do end up causing harm to men in the name of providing them with power and status. A good example of this is seen when talking about abuse. A large part of why male abuse victims in straight relationships aren't taken seriously is because it goes against the image that this system paints in order to justify and uphold its existence. Men are expected to be strong and dominant while women are expected to be weak and submissive. This particular situation goes against that expectation, leading to the victim being made fun of for failing to meet those societal standards.

You are whining about standards that are in place because of other men, not because of women. Women historically would not have had the power to create this dilemma you are now complaining about.

Yeah, no. It's not based in biology. This is just bioessentialist nonsense. Being an incel largely stems from a mixture societal issues (the patriarchy) along with how those people decide to deal with them.
From my original post:

Most people don't like incels because incels are misogynists. Incels have gone out of their way to even advocate for and actually harm women and girls.

I'd recommend reading this article before you continue on with your spiel about those 'poor wittle incels'.


Most men don't want to get their female friends. This just tells me that your interactions with the opposite sex are likely few and far in-between. Again, you are trying to use bioessentialist arguments while ignoring other social factors. Specifically pretending to be nice to someone with the idea being that this means that you'll be entitled to their body is gross and demeaning. You are trying to excuse their actions, but considering the fact that most men don't this shit and know better, I would say that "biology" isn't an excuse here.

And yes, they turn hostile. How are going to disagree with that when you can find plentu fo women online who have openly talked about this?

Your unironic use of the term "soyboy" also just making you look worse dude. I can't even take you seriously now.


Again, you are reducing women down to their reproductive parts whilst simultaneously trying to create the image that we are the ones with all the power, as though part of that power wouldn't come with the benefit of being view as a fellow human rather than being reduced down to our wombs and fertility, something that men don't typically have to go through. You would think that with this supposed power would also wouldn't have had more options in life, historicially speaking, instead of being seen as subjects of our husbands and not having the option to live independently. You would also think that, in todays world, it wiuld also mean us not having to work harder to be taken seriously, esepcially in the workplace. To add onto this, there have been societies in the past that did out a lot of emphasis on the role men played in reproduction, so it's weird to try and act as though this supposed praise went one way. You constantly scream about men being disposable your weird obsession with our wombs goes on to also highlight another thing, which is that women are also treated as being disposable. Women's value generally tends to be based on age, looks, and fertility, with women unable to meet those standards being treated poorly or even thrown to the side. This is one of the reasons why people warn women to be careful when going into "traditional relationships", as there are a lot of cases of husbands cheating on and even trading their wives for younger women.

You keep on going on about biological truths when these issues are more sociocultural rather than biological. A lot of how our society is structured today isn't based on biology and is very different from how a lot of societies were structured pre-agricultural era. Again, a lot of what you complain about is due to other men, not women. Along with that, women back then were (and still are to varying degrees throughout the world) treated like objects and had very few rights in comparison to men. The owning of things, like resources, wealth, and status, go back to the the idea of men needing to be dominant and powerful, and image created by and upheld by men.

Also, women don't exist in a vacuum. We also are not all a fucking hivemind (again, showcasing the clear biases you have against us). Women, in the past especially, would have had to care about the wealth of their partner because they would have been completely reliant on them. Back then, women were expected to be homemakers. This type of "traditional lifestyle" costs a lot of money to maintain and that money is being provided from one source. As a result, the wealth of your partner would have mattered. This, funnily enough, doesn't tend to matter nearly as much anymore, as now a lot of women are in the workforce. This is part of why male beauty standards have been going up as of late. Because men can't as easily rely on thing, like income and status, to score a partner they instead now have to try relying more things, such as looks. (*It is important to note that male beauty standards are still not as bad a female beauty standards, though they are getting higher)

A lot of women don't care about height and there are a lot of men who do care about things, such as height. A lot of what you've said can actually be argued in the reverse, as men will typically go after good-looking women as a means of showing off to others.



Anyway, I'm probably not going to bother with responding to you again. A lot of your arguments are literally just you repeatedly trying to push the narrative that you are oppressed for being a man while also being sexist towards women. All of your arguments are just the same bioessentialist bullcrap being stated over and over again. It's like you've never read a history textbook before...

the fact that you're resorting to emotional outbursts only proves my point that society isn't based on rational merit, but rather who can generate the most noise.

you bring up historical inequalities, like voting rights and property ownership for women, as if those were proof of systemic oppression. yet these examples are societal constructs, as you say so yourself. women weren't denied these privileges out of spite, but because historically, the division of labor was based on biology. men, as the physically stronger sex, took on more physically demanding roles like fighting and providing, while women focused on childbearing and caretaking—both equally important for the survival of the species. this was a practical division, not some patriarchal conspiracy. women earned those rights later as society evolved to require less physical labor from men, and naturally, that led to shifting social roles. you can't pretend that biology doesn't play a fundamental role here. and in fact, the modern state of affairs with DEI enforcing 'gender equality' has lead to a quite inorganic situation where men are positively discriminated against due to the fact it has not been taken into consideration that men suffer from inequalities, too, and that women suffer from privileges, too.
for example, women are more likely to be hired under some contexts and are often paid more than men for the same quality of work. according to this study [https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/marley_finley.senior_essay.pdf], in the context of software engineering, women were 41% more likely to be hired than men. men are more likely to commit suicide, take up dangerous jobs, the list goes on.. you must understand that this is not a product of the times, a practical configuration of allocations, but rather an affront to nature itself.

whether you like it or not, throughout history and across species, males have had to compete for female attention. incels are just men who lose out in that competition, for whatever reason- whether due to physical traits, social ineptitude, or other factors. women hold the keys to sexual selection, and the fact that men have to prove themselves worthy of a mate is baked into our biology. even your own argument about men being held to standards of strength and dominance proves this: society expects men to compete and succeed because evolution demands it. this is the result of a process of societal resolution that women have equally contributed to as men have.

your worldview is the product of a world which ostensibly preaches universalism, though in reality is still chained to particularism by biological truths. it is also indicative of a deep sense of entitlement. would a real 'patriarchy' opress the beliefs of a certain stratum of men while elevating the beliefs of women? ultimately your beliefs are quite hypocritical, and their entitlement and their affront to an organic model of society are reminiscent of the beliefs incels hold.

 

[Abandoned Character]

to view sex as the one true thing which gives meaning to life might be unhealthy, but for incels it is inescapable

First off, I appreciate your willingness to engage in this minefield of a thread and commend your level-headedness in the matter. Personally, I do not think people such as yourself deserve any apathy, as it seems you have a good heart and do not engage in hateful rhetoric.

That being said, I would like to challenge you, and any other incel, here. Why is viewing sex as the single thing that brings meaning to life inescapable for the incel? What are these "social realities [that] selectively eliminate incels from all forms of sexual compeition"? I have yet to see an incel clearly define their ideology, perhaps because such clarity in the face of reason--and, ideally, presence--would bring one face to face with their ability to affect change. The fear of acknowledging that you are in complete control of how you relate to the world is far greater than the terror of rejection, and thus you opt for the latter.

The way you (and many other people in this forum, not just incels) frame your problems comes with a high degree of inflexability. I do not mean this as an attack, but as an observation that I am prepared to defend. Phrases like

• "no matter how much theorycraft...my world is still constitued by primary needs which I cannot fulfill"
• "some people do not have the capacity to integrate into the world"
• "after I consume all forms of vapid advice"

all ring with a tone of unproductive fatalism. The world is fucking difficult to interact with, I am on your side there. Wanting to escape it is fine, so long as we are honest about the choices we are making and the consequences, good or bad, that will follow. The cognitive inflexability of the incel is their most defining characteristic and at the same time the one thing they are in control of.

Disclaimer: these thoughts of mine are merely that--thoughts. I sincerely want to engage honestly here because the incel ideology perplexes me as a rational being. The data I have to work with is the myriad of human beings that have found genuine intimacy and romance in their lives, demonstrating that even seemingly impossible limitations can be overcome. And pardon me if this post is scattered, it is quite late and I should have been asleep a while ago.

 

[pyx]

That being said, I would like to challenge you, and any other incel, here. Why is viewing sex as the single thing that brings meaning to life inescapable for the incel? What are these "social realities [that] selectively eliminate incels from all forms of sexual compeition"? I have yet to see an incel clearly define their ideology, perhaps because such clarity in the face of reason--and, ideally, presence--would bring one face to face with their ability to affect change. The fear of acknowledging that you are in complete control of how you relate to the world is far greater than the terror of rejection, and thus you opt for the latter.

actually, @sceáwere gave a pretty thorough rundown, far better than anything i could provide here. you can read that if you want a more detailed explanation of social realities which can selectively eliminate incels, though i'm by no means a faithful representative of inceldom, since i wouldn't even consider myself one according to any meaningful use of the term. despite that, i often find contention in most critiques of the movement; the primary issues consist in misdirecting ones riposte toward internet phantoms without any constructive application to social realities.
but i do disagree with you declaiming that reason alone can trump the abiding defeatism of the incel movement, and that these individuals seem to be caught up in fallacious and contradictory thought. that's the sort of argument levied against those who are on this forum, actually. or perhaps you aren't saying that, instead implying that a capacity to change, which unlike a lot of those on this forum seems preferable to self-destruction, can only be obtained through attempting to eliminate impractical biases. i can understand your point, but i think it is, if not naive, then wrong to claim that one is in complete control of the world they relate to: i would argue that we can only extricate value from the locality of communities which we have access to, which is of course dependent on socio-cultural and economic conditions. that isn't to say it's entirely a status game, but rather that passive forms of social regulation occur from the outset, say in the case of those who don't attend university, where one has the opportunity to organically develop their social circle -- though this is never a certainty. that's an extreme antipode to our practical reasoning, but i'm sure the imagination can fill in the blanks to instantiate some of the implications therein.

The way you (and many other people in this forum, not just incels) frame your problems comes with a high degree of inflexability. I do not mean this as an attack, but as an observation that I am prepared to defend. Phrases like

• "no matter how much theorycraft...my world is still constitued by primary needs which I cannot fulfill"
• "some people do not have the capacity to integrate into the world"
• "after I consume all forms of vapid advice"

all ring with a tone of unproductive fatalism. The world is fucking difficult to interact with, I am on your side there. Wanting to escape it is fine, so long as we are honest about the choices we are making and the consequences, good or bad, that will follow. The cognitive inflexability of the incel is their most defining characteristic and at the same time the one thing they are in control of.

again, i wouldn't consider myself an incel. i do think that inflexibility is a defining characteristic of a lot of the brasher incel types, although i don't think the example you provided here if reflective of that. i genuinely do believe that there are some issues which sheer force and theorycrafting can't solve alone: having said that, a recognition of such realities seems far more conducive to a judicative effort on the part of the individual to attempt to overcome them, rather than merely rejecting these realities as social constructs -- which, moreover, are rules which we are consigned to, as is required of the social fabric.
that is why i am sympathetic to the nonviolent types who simply want community, even if they begin waxing a harmful rhetoric. and yes, a recognition of the rigidity of our social fabric does justify an attempt to escape i.e in suicide: and i think claiming that these individuals could escape their own social realities if they put their best foot forward, bootstraps up, is somewhat contradictory on a pro-choice forum. at the same time, you do inhere to the assumption that an incel's hard-headedness is causative of his own circumstances: fair enough, but how can we draw a line in the sand over what is and is not fixable? must we refer to only those really clear-cut cases of true despair in order to justify our confusion over those lower in the misery index? we must bridge quite a few assumptions in order to arrive at this artificial promontery; what gives us the right to assume that their problems are fixable on the internet, where a reliance on anecdote and pet-theories are king.

Disclaimer: these thoughts of mine are merely that--thoughts. I sincerely want to engage honestly here because the incel ideology perplexes me as a rational being. The data I have to work with is the myriad of human beings that have found genuine intimacy and romance in their lives, demonstrating that even seemingly impossible limitations can be overcome. And pardon me if this post is scattered, it is quite late and I should have been asleep a while ago.

well, surprisingly enough most people don't suffer the same issues as incels do (not to say that most people are lower on any hypothetical misery index!), since they actually represent quite a small minority of men, whose defining characteristics online are often projected onto men who share arbitrarily assigned features i.e those which women in particular seem to think of as unfit. the self-identifying ones don't crop up too often, and we can try to subsume and collate subpopulations of incel-like men outside of the internet with speculatory indifference, but clearly that only seeks to alienate those who are trying somewhat to integrate into communities local to them.
obviously those who are socially integrated will present themselves as the norm, with those undesirables being ostracized and selectively eliminated from spaces where sexual competition occurs. also, unless those around you have lived the lives of characteristic incels, i doubt that that can provide those who do suffer any form of consolation.

appreciate the reply, though. it's a captivating issue, and i dislike when it is written of as the massaging of male egos from those who are merely products of an unjust patriarchal system, whose choice to adopt the values of said system is entirely dependent on them (i reject such easy rhetorical howlers i.e bell hooks). i advocate for pragmatic action, and i don't view detaching oneself from harmful biases -- which amount to the moralistic claim that we can detach ourselves from biological realities and instead advocate for impassive equality -- as doing that: harmful biases should only be forcibly suppressed if they manifest as some disqualifying attribute in an individual, which would impede progress. then again, perhaps i am being reductionistic in believing that human beings are unable to detain with certainty hidden intra-social or ulterior motives, as they might in psychological novels.

 

[justkatie]

I know a lot of men who struggle to have "the sex" with women. They are decent people and whilst they are sad women aren't attracted to them at the moment (due to shyness, low self esteem etc), they could still have a chance at a relationship if they are able to belive in themselves.

Incels from what I have seen feel they DESERVE sex because they are such "nice guys". They only want a particular "type" of woman (able to be controlled, virgin, young and physically attractive ) 'shame' then that these "nice guys" are utterly repulsive, abusive, controlling, misogynistic buttholes huh?